Hi,
Reed Konsler <konsler@ascat.harvard.edu>:
<<
<snip>
The process certainly has purpose, it grinds out better and better
models. That works really well in some circumstances, and it creates
very complex language.
<snip>
But, Eric, we are seldom talking about what "we" mean and are so often
talking about what "they" mean. Other people don't know our
definitions. You have to learn to translate on-the-fly if you are
going to understand what they mean. We ought to be practicing things
which allow us to do this more effectively. Creating a formal system
will draw this group together and separate us from the rest of common
discourse. I think that is counterproductive.
>>
Well, clearly we have different objectives. I am seeking an understanding of faith and it's place in human belief systems. As it stands, we have one word meaning an entire multitude of things, and until we begin to seperate out the meanings and find when each is used, etc, we are going to be hopelessly confused. Eventually, it would be nice to relate the differing meanings to each other, and find out why one word has come to take on so much. (I suspect the equivocation has proven quite useful to proponents of religion). Finally, a good system of deciding what meaning is intended when (which is what you want us to "practice") would also emerge from the analysis.
You are quite right that creating such a formal system will seperate us from the rest of common discourse, but I contend that until we understand the word at that level, we are seperated anyway. (or at least I am)
ERiC